Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-05-08
The Discriminating Veto.

The Discriminating Veto.
We have whenever occasion offered
objected to the proposition so toamend
the Federal Constitution as to confer
upon the President the power to veto
specific items in appropriation bills and
vet sign the bill as whole and thus
make il law. We cannot conceive a
more mischievous proposition and as
the Petersburg Indcr-Appoqt calls for
our reasons we will mention some of
them.
First, then, one result of such an
amendment TO the Constitution would
be the instantaneous conversion of the
usual contest for a nomination for the
presidency into a sectional wrangle
because il would be well known that
the appropriation bills would, if they
became laws. contain one set of items
il passed upon by a New England
President q different set if passed
upon by California or Oregon Presi-
dent third set if passed upon by
southern President and so on to the
end of the chapter. SHERMAN would
veto items in Democratic States and
Democratic congressional districts.
Think of an ANDREW JOHNSTON in
trusted with the discriminating veto :
Or. THAp. STEVENS, or BEAST BUTLER,
or even BLAINE. Ii is only by the
most persistent efforts that southern
congrvssmen can get northern men to
consent to make appropriations for
some of the most mertonous OF OBJ
iects in this section. Mr.. CLEVELAND
killed the last river-and-harbor bill by
a pocket veto. If he had had the dis
eliminating veto, he would have made
a law which would have pleased himself
and other New Workers, but nobody in
the South or the West.
Again: Such veto power would con-
vert many congressman into mere presi-
dental puppets. From the time the bill
reached the President until he signed it
he would be besieged by congressman
crooking the pregnant hinges of the
knee that thrift might fellow fawning.
A sorry spectacle it would be to take
away from Congress the power to legls-
late. and convert its members into mere
registrars of the viii of the Executive.
Not an item could go into an appropria-
ton bill unless approved by the Presi-
dent. Hewouldi in fact be the sole legisla-
tor. Consequently Congress wouldsoon
grow utterly Indifferent as TO what items
were put into the appropriation bills.
And why not ? Tsey would be mere
ciphers, and their bills would DO mere
skeletons for the President to put the
flesh upon, or rather mere bloated
bodies for the President to exercise his
skill upon.
Once more: Such an amendment
would tend to almost limitless extrava-
gance. Those items in the appropria-
ton bills which it would be the object
of the proposed amendment to get rid
Of are put upon the bills in order to Sc
cure for them amajority i'll the House of
Representative Require twO-thirds
vote to pass an item over the Presi-
dents veto, and there would be two and
perhaps ten Objectionable items put
into the appropriation bills for every
one that is now put into them. In
fact, the decentralization bill OF the
last session would have been passed by
a two-thirds vote if the President had
vetoed it directly instead of indirectly
Time and again have the members put
items enough into the riyer-and-harbor
bill to insure its passage over the Presl-
dents veto. And for one we hope that
at its next session Congress will send
lust such a bill to the President, and
send il to him so early in the session
that he cannot veto it by pocketing it.
Finally, the President already has
too much power. The old Wing party
had in its national platform on several
occasions demand for the abolition of
the veto power. Mr.. CLAY advocated
its abolition in powerful speeches. The
executive and legislative departments
ought to be keptas nearly independence
each other as possible, and each should
be intrusted with the powers properly
belonging to it. The Constitution as it
stands is happy compromise on the
subject. Let it stand.